It's unclear to me why any existentialist ought to take your advice. It goes against some fundamental concepts of existentialism. You're proposing a one size fits all solution which was available and rejected as inadequate. I don't see anything new on the table.

phyllo wrote:It's unclear to me why any existentialist ought to take your advice. It goes against some fundamental concepts of existentialism. You're proposing a one size fits all solution which was available and rejected as inadequate. I don't see anything new on the table.

It is a general rule [human nature, instinct, rational] for any known problems to be resolved with solutions.

Iambigous is a good example, i.e. being extricated from his comfort zone of theism* into the frantic states of existentialism without a solution to deal with the exposed problems.* theism is irrational & illusory but it at least provide real psychological comfort and security to the inherent psychological existential crisis.

What I proposed is a generic Problem Solving Technique for any existential problem.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

There are interwoven themes of liberation surrounding freedom to be for Sartre.

On the literary aide of Sartre, he wrote a novel about Jean Genet , a professed homosexual 50 years ago. It was titled "Saint Genet" . So that being the case, may or may not invalidate modulation., as a personal choice.

Meno_ wrote:Prismatic,There are interwoven themes of liberation surrounding freedom to be for Sartre.

On the literary aide of Sartre, he wrote a novel about Jean Genet , a professed homosexual 50 years ago. It was titled "Saint Genet" . So that being the case, may or may not invalidate modulation., as a personal choice.

In promotion of freedom and authencity, it would appear that existentialism do not promote a free for all concept.From what I read of the above, one must have freedom but such freedom must be conditioned to achieve within the optimality of time and circumstances of the present.

E.g. in the above, one is free to practice homosexuality but definitely not performing sexual acts of homosexuality in say a public square or anywhere public.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

phyllo wrote:You're looking for a philosophy, an ideology, a dogma that tells you what is right and what is wrong, what is permitted and what is forbidden.You're not going to find it in existentialism. And you probably should not find it anywhere else although you will.

The Abrahamic religions with their dogmas by default expect that.

Existentialism acknowledges that one is free to think and act.

I don't believe that is the case.You are misrepresenting existentialism.Do you have any reference to support your point?

Rationally I am sure existentialism do not accept rigid moral laws it nevertheless has moral limits to evil acts like genocides, mass rapes, torture, murder, and the likes.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Prismatic567 wrote:]It is a crazy thought to believe in your above views. "agony of choice" in life - that mental pain is similar to a masochist's preference for physical pain in a sexual encounter. I believe your belief and indulgence is a kind of perversion.

Oh, indeed. Over the years, objectivists of all sorts have basically pointed this out to me. I suffer needlessly. Why? Because they are offering me a way to think about "the human condition" that obviates pain and the suffering by subsuming it in one or another rendition of a "right makes might" world.

Ever and always their own though, not yours.

The "perverts" are in turn ever and always "one of them". And here they mean you too.

You embrace their conviction that, in the future, objective morality is within our reach; but you fail to grasp it is ever and only theirs.

Then we are stuck. I prefer Ms. Beauvoir's approach to the "agony of choice in the face of uncertainty".

Why are you going to full out nihilism?

Not sure what you mean by "full out nihilism".

I look at "human reality" on three levels:

1] the ontological/teleological: how are we to understand human existence in terms of Existence itself -- why something and not nothing? why this something and not another? And then the question of determinism.

2] the either/or world: here what things/relationships are said mean seem basically anchored in an objective truth: mathematics, the laws of nature, empirical fact, the logical rules of language. Nihilism appears moot here. In fact the overwhelming preponderance of human interactions from day to day seem embedded in things that are true for all of us.

3] the is/ought world: once we are able to establish that which appears to be true for all of us in our day to day interactions, we still have conflicting reactions regarding how we ought to behave in order to secure and then to sustain our wants and needs. This is the part I deem pertinent regarding dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Its a gamble . its WORTTH the gamble with choices to go for nihilism , whereupon to try the infeated waters, weighed by enormous uncertainty, to strike another, would be more risky and convoluted, in spite of what may be a ground to aignal some other choice. Better to loose one a gamble then go for a conservative advancement toward more. This 'more' may be a choice laden with far more unacceptable loss. The proponents of gain would have it. Minimilism works , as a style even if in spite of a) the possible gain otherwise.

phyllo wrote:It's unclear to me why any existentialist ought to take your advice. It goes against some fundamental concepts of existentialism. You're proposing a one size fits all solution which was available and rejected as inadequate. I don't see anything new on the table.

It is a general rule [human nature, instinct, rational] for any known problems to be resolved with solutions.

Iambigous is a good example, i.e. being extricated from his comfort zone of theism* into the frantic states of existentialism without a solution to deal with the exposed problems.* theism is irrational & illusory but it at least provide real psychological comfort and security to the inherent psychological existential crisis.

What I proposed is a generic Problem Solving Technique for any existential problem.

My own translation of this: If all the other moral objectivists come to understand the use of Problem Solving Techniques as I do they too will eventually come to choose progressive Middle-Way behaviors in the future.

In the interim, however, let's at least be sure that they are defining the meaning of these words as I do too.

iambiguous is uncomfortable because he still believes his dilemma is a reasonable manner in which to construe human interactions in the is/ought world. In a No God world.

I'm not uncomfortable because I simply avoid bringing my general descriptions down to earth by noting how my own moral narrative has nothing to do with dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

If only theoretically up in the scholastic clouds where truths are [pedantically] analyzed into existence.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

phyllo wrote:It's unclear to me why any existentialist ought to take your advice. It goes against some fundamental concepts of existentialism. You're proposing a one size fits all solution which was available and rejected as inadequate. I don't see anything new on the table.

It is a general rule [human nature, instinct, rational] for any known problems to be resolved with solutions.

Iambigous is a good example, i.e. being extricated from his comfort zone of theism* into the frantic states of existentialism without a solution to deal with the exposed problems.* theism is irrational & illusory but it at least provide real psychological comfort and security to the inherent psychological existential crisis.

What I proposed is a generic Problem Solving Technique for any existential problem.

iambiguous wrote:My own translation of this: If all the other moral objectivists come to understand the use of Problem Solving Techniques as I do they too will eventually come to choose progressive Middle-Way behaviors in the future.

In the interim, however, let's at least be sure that they are defining the meaning of these words as I do too.

1. iambiguous is uncomfortable because he still believes his dilemma is a reasonable manner in which to construe human interactions in the is/ought world. In a No God world.

2. I'm not uncomfortable because I simply avoid bringing my general descriptions down to earth by noting how my own moral narrative has nothing to do with dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

If only theoretically up in the scholastic clouds where truths are [pedantically] analyzed into existence.

I don't quite understand your point above?

Re point 1, that is only a belief. Since it is only a belief related to a philosophical dilemma there is no need for you to feel uncomfortable with it. If you disagree with Hume's or any others' view, it would be dumb to feel uncomfortable merely you disagree with them.I will agree if you believed based on evidence X is trying to harm you and thus you feel uncomfortable with that knowledge.

Re 2, if you do not feel uncomfortable with it, there is then no personal issue at all.

Is my understanding of the above right?

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

iambiguous wrote:My own translation of this: If all the other moral objectivists come to understand the use of Problem Solving Techniques as I do they too will eventually come to choose progressive Middle-Way behaviors in the future.

In the interim, however, let's at least be sure that they are defining the meaning of these words as I do too.

1. iambiguous is uncomfortable because he still believes his dilemma is a reasonable manner in which to construe human interactions in the is/ought world. In a No God world.

2. I'm not uncomfortable because I simply avoid bringing my general descriptions down to earth by noting how my own moral narrative has nothing to do with dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

I don't quite understand your point above?

Re point 1, that is only a belief. Since it is only a belief related to a philosophical dilemma there is no need for you to feel uncomfortable with it. If you disagree with Hume's or any others' view, it would be dumb to feel uncomfortable merely you disagree with them.I will agree if you believed based on evidence X is trying to harm you and thus you feel uncomfortable with that knowledge.

The discomfort revolves around being among those who are in fact able to convince themselves that there is an optimal frame of mind that rational/virtuous people are obligated to embrace [re conflicting goods] if they wish to thought of as rational and virtuous people. As "one of us" in other words.

Not only am I not able to take sides in an similar manner, I suggest in turn that in taking sides others are not able to grasp the manner in which such convictions are just existential contraptions.

They become perturbed by my frame of mind precisely because I remind them that it may well be applicable to them too.

After all, the emtional and psychological succor they crave is embedded in a narrative that allows them to ground "I" in one or another holistic sense of reality.

Prismatic567 wrote:Re 2, if you do not feel uncomfortable with it, there is then no personal issue at all.

Sure, as long as what you believe succeeds in comforting and consoling you, you can think yourself into believing that "I" is in sync with that -- as rationally it should be -- and not derived from a particular constellation of existential variables out in a particular world historically and culturally. Construed subjectively/subjunctively such that the is/ought world is not only apprehendable but "in the future" will evolve into a world where all come to grasp "Middle-Way progressive" behaviors and, thus, for all practical purposes, dissolving conflicting goods altogether.

Mere mortals in a No God world today merely have to figure out a way to live that long.

Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose your own chances are?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:My own translation of this: If all the other moral objectivists come to understand the use of Problem Solving Techniques as I do they too will eventually come to choose progressive Middle-Way behaviors in the future.

In the interim, however, let's at least be sure that they are defining the meaning of these words as I do too.

1. iambiguous is uncomfortable because he still believes his dilemma is a reasonable manner in which to construe human interactions in the is/ought world. In a No God world.

2. I'm not uncomfortable because I simply avoid bringing my general descriptions down to earth by noting how my own moral narrative has nothing to do with dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

I don't quite understand your point above?

Re point 1, that is only a belief. Since it is only a belief related to a philosophical dilemma there is no need for you to feel uncomfortable with it. If you disagree with Hume's or any others' view, it would be dumb to feel uncomfortable merely you disagree with them.I will agree if you believed based on evidence X is trying to harm you and thus you feel uncomfortable with that knowledge.

The discomfort revolves around being among those who are in fact able to convince themselves that there is an optimal frame of mind that rational/virtuous people are obligated to embrace [re conflicting goods] if they wish to thought of as rational and virtuous people. As "one of us" in other words.

Not only am I not able to take sides in an similar manner, I suggest in turn that in taking sides others are not able to grasp the manner in which such convictions are just existential contraptions.

They become perturbed by my frame of mind precisely because I remind them that it may well be applicable to them too.

After all, the emtional and psychological succor they crave is embedded in a narrative that allows them to ground "I" in one or another holistic sense of reality.

Prismatic567 wrote:Re 2, if you do not feel uncomfortable with it, there is then no personal issue at all.

Sure, as long as what you believe succeeds in comforting and consoling you, you can think yourself into believing that "I" is in sync with that -- as rationally it should be -- and not derived from a particular constellation of existential variables out in a particular world historically and culturally. Construed subjectively/subjunctively such that the is/ought world is not only apprehendable but "in the future" will evolve into a world where all come to grasp "Middle-Way progressive" behaviors and, thus, for all practical purposes, dissolving conflicting goods altogether.

Mere mortals in a No God world today merely have to figure out a way to live that long.

Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose your own chances are?

I am still not too sure of your point precisely?

What I can gather is the following;

1. Whatever one do, one critical objective is to ensure one has a reasonable state of equanimity. I have done that.

2. Once one has a reasonable state of equanimity, one is not perturb by whatever views are discussed. You seem to be very perturbed and confused by the views you hold.

3. However another critical point, is whatever beliefs one hold they must be soundly justified - highly backed by rationality and wisdom.For example, where I had proposed views for actions to be taken in the future, they are backed arguments based on existing positive trends.

Mere mortals in a No God world today merely have to figure out a way to live that long.

Not sure of your point?How long?

Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose your own chances are?

Again I am not sure of your point.You mean the chances of my forecasts turning to be true?If that is the case, note I mentioned my forecasts are based on sound arguments leveraged on existing positive trends.

Btw, do you believe 'planning for the future' is critical for humanity?Note, "if you failed to plan, you planned to fail" which is not a good human trait.

I believe your confusion [dilemma] is a wrong understanding of the concepts of da-sein of Heidegger or Barret and you had taken the wrong turn into a messed up state.The ideas of da-sein [Heidegger] will loosen and free oneself from the chains of dogmatic/rigid objectivity, but if one do not get a good grasp of what-is-dasein one can be thrown into the terrible turbulence of life.

It would be more efficient if you can quote from Heidegger [re da-sein] to support your points.In that case I can countercheck with the actual thoughts of Heidegger from his books. I have read Heidegger's thought quite extensively sometime ago, I can always do a refresher.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

1. Whatever one do, one critical objective is to ensure one has a reasonable state of equanimity. I have done that.

My point is that equanimity itself is the goal. Not what the objectivist believes but that the objectivist believes it. That's why in a room filled with hundreds and hundreds of hopelessly conflicted and contradictory moral/political narratives, each and every agenda will be defended as the one true rendition of what you happen to call "progressive" behavior.

Prismatic567 wrote: 2. Once one has a reasonable state of equanimity, one is not perturb by whatever views are discussed. You seem to be very perturbed and confused by the views you hold.

Yes, and my point is that in order not to be perturbed and confused the objectivist [often exhibiting an authoritarian personality] becomes the embodiment of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Prismatic567 wrote: 3. However another critical point, is whatever beliefs one hold they must be soundly justified - highly backed by rationality and wisdom.For example, where I had proposed views for actions to be taken in the future, they are backed arguments based on existing positive trends.

See how it works? You look at particular trends in the world and you ask yourself, "do they coincide with my understanding of 'progressive' behavior?" You fit the world into your own existential narrative. One basically predicated on a particular set of political prejudices that I deem largely embedded/embodied in dasein. You decide what constitutes "positive" or "negative" trends. And while there are clearly facts that can be ascertained regarding such behaviors as chattel slavery and smoking, where is the moral narrative here that can be established as in fact true for all of us? Even for those [still today] who profit from slavery or, for any number of personal reasons [here and now], choose to smoke.

Mere mortals in a No God world today merely have to figure out a way to live that long.

Prismatic567 wrote: Not sure of your point?How long?

Well, if all the objectivists can do here and now is point to trends that they deem to be in sync with their own idealism, they either live long enough to see the rest of the world come into sync with it or they don't.

Prismatic567 wrote: I believe your confusion [dilemma] is a wrong understanding of the concepts of da-sein of Heidegger or Barret and you had taken the wrong turn into a messed up state.The ideas of da-sein [Heidegger] will loosen and free oneself from the chains of dogmatic/rigid objectivity, but if one do not get a good grasp of what-is-dasein one can be thrown into the terrible turbulence of life.

I merely used Heidegger and Barrett to nudge me in a different direction. My own understaning of dasein is encompassed here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

All I can then do in forums like this is ask others how, in the is/ought world, this rendition of "I" is not in sync with their own. But only out in a particular world in which conflicting behaviors seem to abound in particular contexts that most of us will be familiar with.

In other words, I'm considerably less interested in resolving whether or not my own rendition of "dasein" above would meet with the approval of those who claim to understand what Heidegger or Barrett meant by it.

Instead, I note the manner in which I have come to understand it above and ask folks like you to react to that.

But only existentially, and not as one of Will Durant's "epistemologists".

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Prismatic567 wrote: 2. Once one has a reasonable state of equanimity, one is not perturb by whatever views are discussed. You seem to be very perturbed and confused by the views you hold.

Yes, and my point is that in order not to be perturbed and confused the objectivist [often exhibiting an authoritarian personality] becomes the embodiment of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

iambiguous wrote:But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my "self" is, what can "I" do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknolwedging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we "anchor" our identity to so as to make this prefabricated...fabricated...refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

There are many ways to address the above questions and issues. I have addressed the above question re the "self". I have already make some suggestions re 'Know Thyself' and taking the trouble to know everything that is discussed re the self, i.e. philosophy, neuroscience, biology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, and whatever that is relevant to the historicity of your own self [dasein - own being] and self [dasein -general being].

But before you proceed in the above quest, the most critical is to establish a reasonable state of generic equanimity - as I have stated many times- to anchor your psyche in the midst of the inevitable turbulence of life.

iambiguous wrote:But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my "self" is, what can "I" do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknolwedging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we "anchor" our identity to so as to make this prefabricated...fabricated...refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.

There are many ways to address the above questions and issues. I have addressed the above question re the "self". I have already make some suggestions re 'Know Thyself' and taking the trouble to know everything that is discussed re the self, i.e. philosophy, neuroscience, biology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, and whatever that is relevant to the historicity of your own self [dasein - own being] and self [dasein -general being].

Yes, you have done so. Just as all the other objectivists I have encountered over the years claimed the same. But trust me: Unless you embrace their "suggestions", you don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of actually being right. Why? Because they already beat you to it. This: "taking the trouble to know everything that is discussed re the self".

Prismatic567 wrote:But before you proceed in the above quest, the most critical is to establish a reasonable state of generic equanimity - as I have stated many times- to anchor your psyche in the midst of the inevitable turbulence of life.

A "reasonable state". In other words yours not theirs. And that this reasonable state of general equanimity is the foundation upon which your own particular "I" was able to obtain and then sustain "comfort and consolation", well, that's just icing on the cake.

Again, I've been there. For years and years I too was up out of the hole I am in now, confident in turn that there really was an optimal frame of mind here. There must be because at the time "I" embodied it.

As you do now.

And this whole exchange is basically an exercise revolving around you pulling be up out of the hole I am in before I pull you down into it.

So, sure, quit while you're ahead.

Would that I could myself.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

I believe quitting is a matter of wisdom, i.e. taking the wiser choice.

It is like seeing a drowning person in the middle of a deep lake.If one assess the drowning person is struggling like mad, it would be very stupid to try to save him/her due to the likelihood s/he will grip so hard and pull the life-saver down as well.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Dasein should be understood as something far more profound than mere "existence." It means "being-there" - that is to say, in-relationship with another Being or Beings. Without relationship, authentic Being cannot be (I know this sounds terribly pretentious and unnecessarily esoteric, but Existentialism is a so-called "technical philosophy").

"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest - whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories - comes afterward. These are games; one must first answer." - Camus

Number 6 wrote:Dasein should be understood as something far more profound than mere "existence." It means "being-there" - that is to say, in-relationship with another Being or Beings. Without relationship, authentic Being cannot be (I know this sounds terribly pretentious and unnecessarily esoteric, but Existentialism is a so-called "technical philosophy").

I believe the most effective way to understand Dasein is to put and view it within the overall picture of philosophy within the dichotomy of Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-realism.

Realism (in philosophy) about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Realism can be applied to many philosophically interesting objects and phenomena: other minds, the past or the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the physical world, and thought.

Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to anti-realist views (like some forms of [n/a] which deny the existence of a mind-independent world). Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[1]

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[2] In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism.

From the above, Philosophical Realism = for a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme, i.e. the self.

Thus the Philosophical Anti-Realism oppose Philosophical Realism and thus have the view,for a given object is the view that this object exists in reality interdependently of our conceptual scheme, i.e. the self.

Thus if one understand what is Philosophical Realism about -which is very simple to understand because it so obvious - then turn it over 180 degree and that would be Philosophical anti-realism which is the basis for Dasein.

So basically Dasein is the beingness of the self that exists interdependent with its reality.

In Being and Time Heidegger explain the above using his own terminologies and expositions.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.